This is the seventh in a series of volumes
by John Polkinghorne, President of Queen's College, Cambridge. Polkinghorne is a former
Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics, a Fellow of the Royal Society and, recently,
an Anglican priest. This book is an overview of his first six books, all of which deal
with some aspect of how the religious and scientific worldviews relate to one another.
Reviews on three of these have appeared recently in Perspectives. Walt Hearne
looked at Faith of a Physicist in December 1995, Richard Bube reviewed Reason
and Reality in June 1993, and Daniel Wray analyzed The Way the World Is in
March 1993.

In 1896, A. D. White's The Warfare of
Science and Theologyin Christendom presented the case for antipathy between
these worldviews; Polkinghorne's thesis, splendidly expounded, is an account of the friendship
between them, which he believes to be the truer assessment.

In a manner reminiscent of C. S. Lewis,
Polkinghorne writes both clearly and concisely on issues of substance. He sees both
science and religion to be searches for truth. He writes: "The central religious
question is the question of truth. Of course, religion can sustain us in life, or at the
approach of death, but it can only do so if it is about the way things really are"
(p. 97).

The science/religion relationship is
explored in eight short chapters. In Chapter 1, Fact or Opinion? he explains how
experiment and theory, and fact and interpretation are always intertwined in science, and
that matters of judgment must be considered. As he develops this theme into religious
matters, he finds interesting differences: "Religious knowledge is much more
demanding than scientific knowledge. While it requires scrupulous attention to matters of
truth, it also calls for the response of commitment to the truth discovered." And:
"Nearly all that makes life worth living slips through the wide meshes of the
scientific net" (p. 13).

Subsequent chapters address questions of
clues to God's existence, his ways of creation (p. 46, "He did not create a magic
world because he is not a magician", problems of reductionism (p. 52, "A few H20
molecules by themselves are not wet"), issues of miracles and resurrection, and
questions of how a scientist can believe. This last topic is, perhaps, the most important.
Certainly, the popular image of a scientist in today's secularized world does not include
a Christian faith relationship! For example, Margaret Wertheim asserts in her otherwise
well-written book Pythagoras' Trousers that "today most physicists no longer
maintain formal ties with any religion" (p. 7). "I do not know that to be a
fact; Wertheim does not cite documentation. But when I was a young Carnegie Tech physics
student in 1949, I remember thinking this must be so." Counteracting this impression
(thankfully) were the writings of a science popularizer of that day, Sir Arthur Eddington,
a Quaker, who found science and religion compatible. John Polkinghorne continues this
tradition. His writings are heartily recommended. This is an excellent book to slip in the
hands of your young loved one as he or she sets off for a college education in the
sciences!

This book provides an excellent history of
science that chronicles science's quest to explain how the world came into being. In ten
chapters, the book explores answers provided by Egyptian science through the Middle Ages
and on to modern particle physics. The history is presented with exceedingly lucid
explanations of phenomena that make this an ideal textbook and reference for those who
want to become scientifically literate without becoming scientists.

Spradley compiled much of the book's
content while teaching a general science course for nonscience majors at Wheaton College.
The book was produced for Wheaton and is formatted as a text, being somewhat larger than
normal (8x10 in.) with the text in two-column format. References are not indexed in the
text but instead are collected at the end of each chapter.

The first four chapters consider the sun.
Spradley begins with prehistoric cultures and their fascination with the heavenly motions.
The religious or philosophical significance is presented in concert with the limitations
that this engendered within Greek, Islamic, and Christian cultures. The result is a
balanced treatment covering many philosophies, and it illustrates how and why scientific
progress stagnated at different points in history.

Chapters 4-8 build on the theme of rapid
scientific progress that began with Copernicus and Galileo. The development of
heliocentrism is followed by three chapters describing the genesis of physical and
inorganic chemistry, evolutionary biology, and electricity. These chapters provide a
background to atomic structure that make a smooth transition into the final chapters on
relativity and quantum theory (A Relational Universe, Chapter 9) and particle physics (An
Expanding Universe, Chapter 10).

The beauty of this book is the way that
complex ideas are clearly explained and made easy to understand. Spradley prevents the
content from becoming dry by liberally peppering the book with snippets, some may say
trivia, relevant to the topic at hand. Did you know that the days of the week are named
after planetary deities e.g., Saturday (Saturn) or that Pasteur who had developed cowpox
inoculation to prevent smallpox [called] it `vaccination' (from the Latin vacca for
cow) (p. 162)?

This book is a true asset for all those
that teach introductory science courses and I urge ASAers to consider adopting this text.

Earman is Professor of History and
Philosophy of Science at the University of Pittsburgh. In the Preface he writes that
philosophers do not appreciate the seriousness of the foundational issues posed by
singularities in general relativity. These issues are important for the philosophy of
space and time. He wants to end that neglect with this book. Earman wrote the book
primarily for philosophers who have some acquaintance with relativity theory and
secondarily for philosophically-minded physicists. This book is not a comprehensive
survey; such a survey would require too much history, philosophy, physics, and
mathematics. Reading this book requires knowledge of differential geometry.

Scientists are interested in spacetime
singularities. What causes singularities? Chapter three (on Cosmic Censorship) discusses
what Penrose called the most important unsolved problem of classical relativity theory:
the breakdown in classical predictability and determinism (p. 65). Laws of nature codify
certain deep regularities (p. 97), but we are not (yet) able to predict naked
singularities: points where the laws of General Relativity Theory break down. Is there
cosmic censorship? We don't know. We should research the scientific problems posed. We
cannot reach big bangs, black holes etc. and do not know what is on the other side of a
singularity, but we know that God created laws and regularities. From Scriptures we learn
that we will not know when the world will end. It is a naked singularity caused by Divine
law, not understood by physicists.

God created the universe. Some theologians
say that God used the Big Bang. Unfortunately scientific literature dealing with
singularities like the Big Bang is difficult for theologians to read. This book is no
exception. Theologians who open the book and see the mathematical symbols may close the
book immediately. They should read about God's work on pages 207-210. Earman reasons that
time is open-ended since we cannot learn the moment of the first singularity by going back
in time. A similar argument exists for the end of time. Earman thinks it is sacrilegious
to see God's creative force operating only at a singularity (p. 209). It is more to his
glory if he operates everywhere and anytime.

Scientists who are Christians should be
interested in this book. They will realize that we have hardly started talking about the
consequences of relativity theory. What happens when we die? Does time continue for us?
Are we in a timeless eternity? If God is eternal, what is eternity? Time without end?
Before we start talking about these problems we should really know what spacetime is. Is
space four-dimensional, or ten-dimensional? Foundational problems discussed in this book
are important for all believers. Philosophizing physicists should lead the way.

This is an interesting technical and
philosophical book. The book will mainly attract philosophers of science, physicists, and
mathematicians.

Dauber and Mullet want this book to be
read by the general public and used as a supplementary text in physics and astronomy
classes. To keep it manageable for both purposes, the 23 chapters are short. Both writers
teach physics. Muller still works as researcher in Berkeley, California, where Dauber used
to be as well. Dauber is also a film maker.

This book is easy to read. Part I
describes collisions of comets and asteroids with planets, ending with the crash that
caused an almost total annihilation of life on earth 65 million years ago. Part II
describes exploding stars and how these explosions created the necessary elements for life
on earth. The creation of the universe is the subject of Part III. In the beginning of the
book, we read that the violence of nature is key to answering the questions: How did we
get here? If we believe in God, how did he do it? The authors acknowledge: "Omitted
from our account of origins thus far is the biochemical (or possibly divine) step by which
mere atoms and molecules became living beings" (p. 187). Further down the page we
read: "So far, however, no one has been able to take chemicals from the shelf,
combine them somehow, and make an infective virus, priori, or bacterium."

This book is quite up to date. There are
no footnotes or endnotes in the book. However, the short bibliography suggests some books
for further reading. This book is a good first introduction to physics and astronomy.

Haught, Professor of Theology at
Georgetown University and well-known author on similar topics, indicates that his purpose
in writing this book is to provide an introduction for non-experts into the central issues
in science and religion. He treats religions semi-genetically, lumping Judaism,
Christianity, and Islam together as God-religions with a common perspective, described by
their leaders Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad. The book takes its place along with others of a
similar orientation, helpfully distinguishing between different ways that people relate
science and religion, and then showing how these different ways express themselves when
considering nine basic questions: AIs Religion Opposed to Science? Does Science Rule Out a
Personal God? Does Evolution Rule Out God's Existence? Is Life Reducible to Chemistry? Was
the Universe Created? Do We Belong Here? Why Is There Complexity in Nature? Does the
Universe Have a Purpose? and Is Religion Responsible for the Ecological Crisis?

Each of four principal ways of relating
science and religion is described fairly completely in each chapter from the perspective
of one holding that position. The author suggests to the reader: 'imagine that you have in
front of you representative spokesperson for each of the four ways of relating science to
religion. Allow each of the four groups to present its case directly to you here without
interruption." It is an effective technique.

All four positions represent corrections
on a basic fifth position that the author names conflation, the undifferentiated
merging of aspects of religion with a few carelessly understood scientific ideas. The
first position treated in each issue discussion is conflict. This is the position
that religion is utterly opposed to science or that science invalidates religion. It
represents a virtually total rejection of the other perspective by advocates of one of
them. The second position is contrast, theview that religion and science
are so clearly different from each other that conflict between them is logically
impossible. The third position is contact, theview that although religion
and science are distinct, science always has implications for religion and vice versa.
Interaction between them is inevitable and essential. The fourth position is confirmation,
emphasizing the positive ways in which religion supports the scientific enterprise of
discovery, and even gives a special kind of blessing to the scientific quest for
truth. The author himself essentially rejects the conflict position, sympathizes with the
contrast position, and lends support primarily to the contact and confirmation positions.

Haught, realizing that most readers will
support more than one of these four positions to some extent, rather than being an
advocate of one to the exclusion of all the others, concludes that the four ways seem to
resemble less a fixed typology than differentiated phases of a single complex process. As
he anticipated, some of the distinctions between the chosen positions can be confusing to
the reader. The contrast position is often treated as if it argued for a
compartmentalization and separation of all insights obtained from science and religion,
which he opposes. Although Haught made strong efforts to avoid misstatements, it is
difficult to consistently keep the reader aware that authentic science and religion
provide us with intrinsically different descriptions of reality which the author mostly
supports without being led to the false conclusion that this inevitably involves us
in a compartmentalization of science and religion.

The contact position is advanced as
the remedy for this compartmentalization of science and religion in the contrast position.
Once again the reader may be a little uneasy with the assertion that contact is a
new point of view that overcomes the compartmentalization of the contrast position.
As a matter of fact, many people who hold to a complementary perspective with respect to
science and religion, hold to both the different kinds of description that come to us
through science and religion (as in the contrast position), while at the same time
strongly urging that these insights must be integrated (as in the contact position).
It would appear therefore that a complementarity position adopts both aspects of contrast
and contact advocated by Haught, but the term complementarity does not even appear
in the index.

I endorse and applaud the many efforts
Haught made in this book to clarify differences and uphold defensible and desirable
positions. In most of the book, this kind of support can readily be given once the
reflections above have been understood. But occasionally Haught makes a statement that
seems to simply say too much, e.g., "Today we need to recast all theology in
evolutionary terms; it now seems that the prospect of mind's evolving may have been
a factor in shaping the cosmos as early as the big bang; [scientists] are now asking why
nature tends toward emergent complexity." Doesn't this new `why' question bring
science to the brink of theology? As in the case of other comments like these, we try to
decide whether he is really being literal or simply poetic.

The scientific reader may be surprised at
Haught's surprise: What is the purpose of science? We thought it was to explain and
predict, not just describe; scientists who study chaos and complexity are less inclined to
claim that science explains than that it describes. But now scientists are starting
to recognize how exquisitely sensitive most natural outcomes are to their initial
conditions. These new insights are certainly the old insights of anyone actually involved
in science, except for those who regularly confuse metascience and philosophy with actual
science.

There is a lot that can be learned by
reading this book, and grappling with its various inputs can lead the reader to clarify
thoughts on the subject.

This book is meant for readers who want to
know how the notion of the infinite has changed in time. The author succeeded in writing
an easy-to-read book. It explains the difficulties any study of infinity encounters in
mathematics. Vilenkin brings us from old Babylonian mathematics via mathematicians like
Cusa, Copernicus, Newton, Leibniz, etc. to the modern age. In the process, he talks about
curved space and its difficulties. In Chapter Two, he described in story form the
mysteries of the infinite in mathematics.

Vilenkin tells about the paradoxes which
appeared at the end of the nineteenth century. He mentions difficulties arising in
cosmology and physics when people use Aold theories. He discusses the idea of curved
space. All this is done so that a non-scientist can understand it. I even recommend it for
reading in a History of Mathematics and Science class. The book is helpful for someone who
has difficulty with concepts of modern mathematics.

Mathematicians and philosophers of science
should read In Search of Infinity. Reading it does not take much effort, and it may
help in teaching.

This book was originally published in
Dutch in 1990 in The Netherlands, and the current issue referred to here is an English
translation by John Bowden. The author tells us that "I have more than thirty years
of teaching science and scientific research behind me. During that time I have tried to be
a believing Christian." The book is an interesting personal reflection on several
issues involved in the interaction between science and Christianity. In certain places,
the author appears to be stating crucial decisions in ways that might be misunderstood;
some of this may lie in the problems of translation.

One issue that appears several times is
whether it can be claimed that there is an objective reality. In one place such objective
reality is pictured as a philosophical commitment to a reality which exists outside human
beings, but which can be known by them. The author then goes on to tell us that the
existence of such objective reality has been a major question in twentieth-century science
and that the answer is definitely, No. One might prefer a definition of objective reality
as the nature and properties of the created order which do not depend on human intentions.
Modern science has accentuated the essentially common-sense realization that human actions
affect the world around them, but this does not remove the claim that such an objective
reality, defined as the structure of all interactions including human observations, does
indeed exist.

It may still be maintained that the
properties expressed in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle give valid insights into the
nature of reality, and that no human being by exerting his willpower or expressing his
intentions can change the nature of created reality that gives rise to the properties
currently expressed by the Uncertainty Principle. It is particularly troubling when the
author says, The percipient and the perceived are one and indivisible. A possible insight
into the author's thought comes up later when he treats commonsense reality as almost
synonymous with objective reality. One has the feeling that one might agree with most of
what the author is trying to say, but not necessarily with the way he says it.

On the other hand we can totally agree
with the author when he says that modern science has brought us the triple relativizing of
scientific knowledge as `an approximate description of a limited number of physical
phenomena which in their turn are only a limited part of our human experience.' Nor can
enough warnings be given against making a scientific theory the basis of a worldview.

After the first five more or less
introductory chapters, the author indicates the path he intends to follow: Is God an
obsolete notion which has been made superfluous by the process of science? Or is God, as
some contemporary scientists claim, to be found precisely through science? Or are there
perhaps other ways which lead to God? Can anything be `proved' in this area? The lives and
outlooks of four prominent scientists are considered: Newton, Pascal, Einstein, and
Hawking.

The author then turns to a consideration
of whether science can lead us to God. He rejects the claim of Davies that science forms a
more certain way to God than religion, and comments "I cannot help finding this final
stage of this `scientific way to God' extraordinarily poverty-stricken, to put it too
mildly. It doesn't mean anything to me at all. Physics is made a pseudo-religion of
which the physicists are the priests."

In considering the possibility of proof,
the author offers his own definition of proof as the collecting of evidence to make
something acceptable `beyond reasonable doubt.' This is the legal language of the
courtroom, and its introduction here has its usual confusing effects because it is not the
meaning of the word prove in its normal mathematical or scientific context. On the other
hand, when he completes this discussion it is with words with which we could heartily
agree: "The conclusion to be drawn from all the evidence can never be an
incontrovertible proof that `God exists'; but for me the existence of God, his presence
and effect in the lives of many people, is beyond any reasonable doubt."

The final three chapters are primarily a
summary of personal beliefs. First the author describes his attraction to such
personalities of faith as St. Francis, his teachers Master Bergsma and C. C. de Bruin, and
finally his own father. Then he turns his attention to describing the common
characteristics between the ways of science and religion. "Since I had started a
chapter on Physics for a Christian several years ago with the words, Physics is fun, I was
surprised to read in this book, It is unique, it is exciting and fascinating, and it is no
fun"; again I suspect a problem with semantics, particularly because later in the
book he says, "In this book I have tried to give some indication of the joy that the
explorations of physicists bring them now and then." He concludes with A believer is
someone who has taken a way, just as a physicist is someone who follows a way, which may
be equivalent to saying that fundamental choices, whether in science, religion, or other
aspects of life, must all be faith choices.

Finally the author considers intersections
between science and Christian faith. How do physicists who are believers practice their
discipline in relationship to their faith? Has faith anything to do with the social
consequences of science and technology? Here confusing semantics causes trouble: Why
should the laws of nature be sacred? Doesn't the God who made them have the power to
suspend them at times? This assumes the usual misunderstanding that laws have some
independent existence, and are not simply human descriptions of God's regular activity.
The author is outspoken in the simple declaration, "There is no such thing as
Christian physics."

With his treatment of the scientist's
responsibility for the social consequences of his work, the author leaves us uncertain.
First he says that it is impossible for science researchers to have a sufficiently clear
idea about the social applications of their work, so that it is therefore hard to make the
practitioners of fundamental physics responsible for the consequence of their work. To
illustrate this he speaks of the consequences of research aimed at military goals and
concludes that arms manufacturing is not in principle a dirty job. But then he moves in
the other direction, If scientists have become involved, can they not at least do
everything possible to limit the damaging consequences? and back again, In by far the
great majority of instances, these consequences are outside their reach. Which is it:
responsible or not responsible?

Let me conclude this review with the
positive conclusion offered by the author: Believers must not belittle science, but show
science its due place, that of a servant of humanity and not its idol. That is what I have
tried to do in this book. If the reader can come away with this conclusion, then the book
as a whole can be recommended for thoughtful reading and guidance in living.

The writer wants to prove that scientific
research about natural evolution since the Big Bang agrees with the Bible's creation
story. His purpose is great, since we understand God's invisible power end divine nature
through the things he has made. However, I don't think that anyone can ever prove the
correctness of Genesis 1.

Corey says in the preface that he proved
earlier the existence of a Grand Designer in a formal probabilistic proof using the Strong
Anthropic Principle as a theoretical guide. Corey describes the basis of his reasoning (p.
35) as going backward to the beginning to discover that the values for constants were
exactly right at the beginning. If any constant had been slightly different, the universe
would not have formed stars. Thus natural laws are more basic then the Creator of the
laws.

Freedom for man in all respects is a
recurring theme. Corey says that moral evil is necessary so that man can be responsible
for his own development (p. 330). In other words, the fall in sin in Gen. 3 was necessary;
only then can we develop ourselves. This interpretation of the fall makes God the author
of sin. In the last chapter, Corey talks about ecological disasters caused by men. I would
have said by sin. Corey should have mentioned Jesus as Restorer of creation here.

Another problem is the relationship
between time and eternity. On the one hand, Corey realizes that God created time at the
Big Bang; on the other hand, he ponders about what probably preceded the Big Bang. If it
were possible to talk about Abefore the Big Bang, then the exactness of the natural
constants should not surprise Corey. In unlimited time, an unlimited number of trials are
possible, even if each trial takes billions of years. Corey knows that eternity is not
extended time, but explores the consequences insufficiently.

The author realizes that all scholarly
disciplines describe the same world. He complains that a schism exists between
philosophical theology and the various scientific disciplines (p. 345). Corey concludes
that every scientist should know some philosophy. I agree. Corey's philosophical thinking
starts with the pagan philosopher Plato. His theory of soul and spirit is more Greek than
biblical. Corey mentions Image of God, but he excludes the physical side of man (p. 148).
He says, that it is clearly impossible for God to be physical. However, Jesus became
human, though he was God.

The book may interest scientists who study
philosophical foundations of their science.

Don Boys earned a Ph.D. at Heritage
Baptist University and is a columnist, author, Baptist evangelist, politician, and
frequent guest on TV and radio talk shows. As an author, he has written 10 books, numerous
magazine and newspaper articles, and was a regular contributor to USA Today from
1985-1993. As a member of the Indiana House of Representatives, Boys co-authored
legislation to require the teaching of creation on an equal basis with evolution in
Indiana public schools. He now resides in Ringgold, Georgia.

In this book, written from his creation
science perspective, Boys is responding to evolutionists like Stephen Gould who admitted
that creationist-bashing was in order for our time by bashing back. In his words,
"I'm willing to bare-knuckle it with any evolutionist; we are in a battle for the
minds and souls of men, so I have approached this subject like a war. And in this war I am
not a conscientious objector. I will elaborate on this in a moment."

This book has 21 chapters which give
reasonably good coverage of the usual creation science arguments against Darwinian
evolution and for a young earth and recent creation. Boys begins Chapter 11 very
emphatically: According to the Bible, God created the universe, the world, and man in six
literal days less than 10,000 years ago! He is equally emphatic in his opinion of
evolutionists. For example, in Chapter 19 he writes, "The thing that surprises me
when an evolutionist spouts his drivel about how they can `prove' the great age of the
Earth is that informed people don't fall to the floor, gasping and holding their sides
with raucous laughter!" This quote should give you a good idea of the attitude with
which this book was written. Boys has included an extensive listing of references at the
back, some thirty pages. However, many are pre-1980 and only very few are less than five
years old. The book also has several black and white photographs, (e.g., one of an iron
hammer found encased in stone) and one chart (of the geologic column which seems to be
placed in the wrong chapter).

If the main intent of this book is to bash
evolutionists, it may be considered a success. According to Boys, evolutionists are:
skunks, vicious and vitriolic (p. 12), pathetic and pompous (p. 47), vain, venal, and
venomous (p. 299), unfair, unreasonable, unacceptable, unblushing, unbecoming, uncivil,
unconscionable, and ungentlemanly (p. 302), dishonest (p. 308), and unkind and unscholarly
(p. 318). As to Darwinism, Boys says, The only people who believe in the gradualism of
Darwin are deceived children, fools, half-wits and college professors who get paid for
teaching it (p. 14).

In reading this book, I find that the
character of Boys is more like a politician who delights in name-calling than one with any
background in science. I agree with much of what Boys has to say, but I have significant
problems with his style of presentation. Certainly many unkind and uninformed words have
been expressed about Christian views of origins, but I wonder if we should respond in the
same way.

If you want another book which summarizes
many of the creation science arguments for a young earth and recent creation with rhetoric
that goes well beyond that of Henry Morris, maybe you will want to read this book. If you
want a book written from a well-informed scientific perspective that argues for creation
by the hand of Almighty God, perhaps you will want to look elsewhere.

This book is a book that I wholeheartedly
recommend to anyone, scholar or not. The only requirement is love for God and a Bible
nearby. My main criticism is the title. I anticipated that the book would discuss
controversies between creation and evolution using the Bible as source for proof texts.
That was not so. The Dutch title suggests the contents better: The world becomes home.
About beginnings: Genesis 1-12. Van der Zee tells how he first heard the stories of
Genesis. He then explains how that might cause troubles in our faith later in life. After
that he starts telling the story as he teaches it. The book is the result of a series of
radio talks.

While reading the first few pages, I felt
uncomfortable, probably due to the title of the book. We are so used to precise
definitions that I inwardly started criticizing some ways the author talked about nature
as directed by God. In our scientific work, we use very precise definitions. As a result,
we say creation or evolution, ape or Adam. We often want either this or that, and are
uncomfortable if we have to say this and that. Saying either creation or evolution
sounds as if God stopped working when there was a man. It sounds as if, after God had
created, evolution took over. Worse, it may sound as if no god created. It is all chance.
In that way chance becomes God. We believe, however, that God's hand is in everything.
Therefore, any evolution that happened, or might still happen is in the hand of God. We
should not contrast creation and evolution.

There are a few spelling mistakes. More
serious is the error on page 56 where we read that there are 10 generations between Adam
and Abraham. That should read 10 generations between Noah and Abraham. In the first few
chapters, the writer should formulate some statements more carefully to prevent
misunderstanding.

I am glad that this book is available. It
is a book of connected meditations. The author uses only the actual biblical text or other
Bible passages to justify a particular exegesis. For me it made sense; more than that, I
enjoyed the connections the author made with other passages. Many people should read this
small book.

In his mid-seventies, Morrill
independently publishes this book which covers a lifetime of ideas and opinions on the
subjects of evolution and religion. A retired high school biology teacher, he describes
himself as naturalist, poet, scientist, in that orde, idiot and genius in that order also
(p. 16). In Evolution, Morrill is at times inventive and poetic, though hardly
rigorous scientifically. Maybe it is for this reason that the many articles and books he
purports to have written were, he admits, never accepted for publication.

Morrill begins with the assumption that
evolution is a fact (p. 2). Darwinism's natural selection operating on genetic mutations
strikes the author as too random. As introduced here, Morrill's growth evolution positions
intelligence, or the whole organism as the prime mover in the process (p. 23). In this
way, life organizes. He finds support in recent speculations of directed mutation in
bacteria.

Morrill defines evolution as the
development of living complexity. Drawing from examples of African Rift Lake cichlids, he
interprets an historical cooperative proliferation of life, rather than a diversification
via competitive elimination (p. 62). His aversion to competition and extinction is such
that at one point he suggests that the dinosaurs disappeared because they were in a
process producing life higher than dinosaurs (p. 97, italics mine).

In the evolution of the planet,
intelligence was apparent in the very first molecular interactions. Upon increasing in
complexity, life's evolutionary soul or consciousness (p. 83) reached cellular,
organismal, and now, community and biospheric levels of organization. Developing this
analogy of evolution as growth of one earth organism, Morrill suggests that we, and our
(dinosauran?) ancestors, represent the Earth's Agerm lineages and that all other organisms
are the somatic body, buffering, protecting, and feeding us (p. 84). The full implications
of this idea are not explored. However, Morrill sees evidence that evolution has
culminated in man; all traits are trending toward, or are brought to perfection in
humanity (p. 45). Finally then, the greater purpose of evolution is heavening. What
Morrill means by this is unclear, though the book's final paragraph lists cultural works
of Western civilization which, presumably, represent our proximity to perfection.

Creative as Morrill is in Evolution, the
work remains weak due to the absence of peer reviewers or an editor. Morrill misquotes,
misrepresents, and inadequately cites many of his sources, a fundamental problem in the
work. His grasp of evolutionary thought is immature. He is unable (or unwilling) to
incorporate the evolutionary metaphor of a bush of diverging and introgressing lineages
into his work, but he is willing to use, inappropriately, the metaphor of a ladder with
humans at the topmost rung. As religious speculation, his teleological approach might seem
appropriate, but as a posture taken towards science, he cripples his theory of growth
evolution. Finally, while parts of the work are colorful and descriptive, entire chapters
are clumsy. Morrill suggests that the book is for the defrocked priest and scientist, but
I could not even recommend it to them. For those yet interested in obtaining a copy of the
book, it is available from the author at Route 16, Box 9047, Tallahassee, FL 32310 for $10
plus postage.

These are two books with a common theme:
concern about the environment. Neither book deals directly with the interaction between
the science and the theology of environmentalism. They are in many ways about as different
as two books on the same topic could possibly be. Perhaps it was this striking difference
that led me to consider reviewing them together. The first seeks to inform the reader
about what diverse groups of people believe about environmental issues; the second
presents the heartfelt convictions on environmental issues of a lifelong professional
environmentalist.

Environmental Values in American Culture is
an anthropological study of how Americans regard a variety of environmental changes. Its
goal is to understand American environmentalism and to investigate possible sources of
support for environmental solutions. It is essentially an academic undertaking designed to
find out what people think about environmental issues and why. Its authors are Willett
Kempton, Assistant Professor and Senior Policy Scientist at the Center for Energy and
Environmental Policy at the University of Delaware; James S. Boster, Associate Professor
of Anthropology at the University of California, Irvine; and Jennifer A. Hartley, a
doctoral student in the Department of Anthropology at Brown University. They have adopted
anthropological techniques semistructured interviews and a fixed-form survey to
determine public opinion on a range of environmental issues, using samples of that public
opinion drawn from a variety of positions. In the appendices at the end of the book, 56
pages are devoted to a summary of the information and opinion-gathering techniques used.
In the major text itself, a total of about six pages is devoted to the general subject of
Areligion and environmental values. Major topics considered include cultural models of
nature, cultural models of weather and the atmosphere, environmental values, and cultural
models and policy reasoning.

The diversely representative groups
involved in the survey are Earth First!, Sierra Club, the general public, dry cleaners,
and sawmill workers. Their major conclusions are: Among the surprising findings are that
the public and scientists have completely different understandings of some critical
environmental problems and proposed policy solutions, that environmental values have
already become intertwined with other American values from religion to parental
responsibility and that an environmental view of the world is more universal than
previous studies have suggested. The major unanswered question emerging from the study is
If American environmental values are so pervasive and strong, why is there not more
environmental action?

Livable Planets are Hard to Find, on
the other hand, is a passionate exposition of the problems and the need for solutions of a
variety of environmental issues, by Irving W. Knobloch, Professor Emeritus of Botany with
specialization in plant pathology, at the Michigan State University in East Lansing. The
author is motivated by his Christian commitment to subscribe to the belief that God's
resources must be managed to keep the earth livable. It is the purpose of this book to
provide the information so that people not trained in science will understand the nature
and the urgency of the situations in many areas. In the words of the author, AIs it
possible for those with means to properly care for the billions who have little or
nothing? Is it possible for the world's citizens to learn to live with the natural
world, thus ensuring a continuing existence of life on the planet Earth? Appendix A gives
a list of suggestions for AWhat You Can Do, and Appendix B a list of organizations to
consider supporting.

Starting with the realization that the
only organism here, among many millions, who is seriously befouling the earth is the human
animal, the author proceeds to a consideration of people's basic needs: water, food, soil,
and air. He then devotes a chapter to the issues related to the tropical rain forests,
followed by a discussion of extra-tropical developments.

Finally he considers that central issue
for all understanding of environmental responsibility in the future: the issue of
overpopulation. If present trends in many areas continue on into the future, it may be
possible to argue that the ultimate effects will not be seriously or ultimately
destructive for life on earth; but in the area of overpopulation, this is simply not the
case. If the world's population continues to grow at the present rate, only chaos and
misery lie ahead: the population will be stabilized by the death of all those needed to
stabilize it through starvation, disease, war, or other catastrophe. Here contraception,
abortion, and immigration are related critical issues. The author concludes, "The
first step is to prevent the human population from doubling."

Whether one adopts the academic attitude
of the anthropological researcher seeking to find out the opinions that people hold on
environmental issues, or the personal commitment and involvement of the informed Christian
scientist, these two books each contribute helpfully in their own way to the growing
literature on the nature of environmental problems and the need for large-scale commitment
to their resolution.

The author, a researcher on folk dancing
with three photo books on this art form published (all in 1995), makes the observation
that dance costumes are much the same the world around. She has concluded that this data
is a proof of the Genesis flood and has compiled her speculations about this and other
origins questions in this book.

Claiming no scientific expertise, Miss
Gilfillan liberally sprinklespossibly, maybe, and probably throughout the text, in which
are discussed such concepts as: evolution ending at the end of the last ice age; the races
originating with the wives of the sons of Noah; the probable location of Atlantis; Cain's
mark he was very tall; and Adam a crossbreed Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon.

The work may have usefulness for someone
interested in compiling data on origins speculations, particularly because of the
extensive footnotes. Otherwise, file it with Velikovsky.

Samuelson, a Professor of Religion at
Temple University and prominent philosopher of Judaism, has an unusually keen interest in
relating Jewish thought to modern science and philosophy. In many ways this book is the
culmination of numerous earlier works on Jewish philosophy, with special emphasis on the
relationship between revelation (faith, ethics) and reason (science, logic). He poses the
question: How does modern Jewish philosophy relate to contemporary scientific thought,
particularly in regard to the concept of creation as understood in terms of cosmology
(what does the universe look like) and cosmogony (the origin of the universe)? The
nineteenth century Jewish philosopher Franz Rosenzweig serves as the focal point because
he provides the fullest account of creation in modern Jewish philosophy (p. 202).

The author divides the book into four
parts, the first being an analysis of Rosenzweig's magnus opus, Star of
Redemption. In an effort to demonstrate that Rosenzweig reflects basic Jewish thought
and tradition, parts two and three provide a sometimes quite detailed overview of
classical rabbinic commentary on Genesis and later medieval philosophical perspectives
that were greatly influenced by Plato's Timaeus. From this Samuelson concludes that
to qualify as a valid Jewish perspective of philosophy or science, existence/reality must
be seen as (1) something that is nothing out of which God, (2) through an act of will, (3)
creates eternally and/or continually a universe. Furthermore, (4) the created universe, in
virtue of God's intention, has meaning and moral value (p. 151). Samuelson contends that
Rosenzweig does qualify as a validly Jewish perspective.

In part four, the author takes this one
step further by asking the question, Is a Jewish interpretation of existence compatible
with modern views of physics and contemporary philosophical perspectives? He answers Yes
by going beyond shortcomings he sees in Rosenzweig to propose a more up-to-date
cosmology/cosmogony that he thinks finds a greater harmony with modern thought.

Samuelson does not provide concrete
answers, in part because much of modern philosophical and scientific thought, particularly
in the area of physics, is itself so theoretical that precise answers are elusive. On the
other hand, he notes that enigmas in physics offer possible keys for explaining a greater
compatibility between revelation and reason than many contemporary scientists might
imagine. For example, (to condense an elaborate thought sequence), physicists have
difficulty meaningfully defining the space between the nucleus and an electron. Is it
nothing, something, or not nothing? Does space have reality? If the space actually defines
the object (nucleus, electron), then space, in a sense, has a greater reality than the
object, reflecting concepts inherent in the Hebrew terms in Genesis 1. This also would be
compatible with classical Jewish views which tend to define statements of scientific laws
[as] ideal-limit claims and not descriptive generalizations (p. 238). In other words, even
in the world of science, whose rational basis is limited to the human senses, there are
realities inadequately explained without a philosophical or spiritual reference.

Modern philosophy, which tends also to be
very mechanistic, has several prominent philosophers who define reality in terms of
non-physical entities, e.g., A. N. Whitehead's ontological process and Martin Buber's
relational explanation of reality. These, of course, express a considerable affinity with
traditional Jewish philosophy and its emphasis on ethics and purpose in creation. Thus,
Samuelson suggests that much in traditional Jewish thought is far more compatible with
than antagonistic to modern philosophy and science.

The modern dialogue/conflict between
religion and science has been almost exclusively the realm of Protestants and Catholics.
Samuelson's work is indeed a Avoice crying in the wilderness in regard to contributions
from the Jewish perspective. He provides an impressive overview of key Jewish authors,
ancient, medieval and modern, whose works provide the most meaningful insight into this
dialogue. His grasp of modern physics is also impressive. Surprisingly, no attention is
given to the theory of evolution, other than one reference in passing (p. 52).

The readers should be warned that more
than occasional tough sledding through philosophical Aesoteria, mathematical complication,
and Hebrew linguistics awaits them. Those with some background in philosophy will find the
sledding provocative and rewarding.

Friedlander is a professor of physics at
Washington University. He has written a related book, The Conduct of Science, as
well as Astronomy: From Stonehenge to Quasars and Cosmic Rays.

The purpose of At the Fringes of
Science is twofold. First, by explaining how science works, Friedlander hopes to keep
laymen, particularly journalists, from being taken in by non-science masquerading as
science. Second, to help in the development of a healthy skepticism, he discusses the
scientific method in detail, delineating its strengths and weaknesses. The book is well
ordered, with a summary appearing at the end of each chapter, and a final chapter
summarizing the entire book.

Friedlander considers in detail science's
set of filters for excluding junk. He distinguishes between three types of possible junk,
giving several examples in each category: strange ideas which arise from well-credentialed
experts or which are plausible given what is already known (the K-T impact hypothesis);
strange ideas which seem to cross the line separating the revolutionary from the
incredible (cold fusion), and strange ideas which have the common distinction of being
labeled as nutty by the experts (Worlds in Collision).

Friedlander devotes less space than one
might expect to true pseudoscience, though there is the obligatory, and thankfully brief,
discussion of Velikovsky. He devotes a single chapter to tabloid science, in which he
discusses sensational or popular pseudoscience: astrology, the Jupiter effect, lben
Browning's earthquake predictions, and UFOs. This chapter is a stick with which to beat
journalists, whom he sees rushing the sensational into print without bothering to check
its accuracy. He also uses a chapter to discuss pseudoscience with a political motivation,
under which are included Lysenko, Aryan physics, and Creation Science.

Friedlander places more emphasis on
Apathological science, in which effects are claimed based on results at the limit of
delectability (polywater or psychic research) or in an area in which the experimenter has
little or no experience (cold fusion). He is careful to distinguish these from deliberate
fraud, and presents examples ranging from data massage (Millikan's oil-drop results), to
over enthusiastic scientists seeing what isn't there (N-rays), to out-and-out
falsification of data (Cyril Burt's data linking heredity and IQ is a probable case, and
several proven cases are also cited).

Friedlander makes two main points. First,
science, though imperfect, is the best system for evaluating the world and will eventually
sort out truth from falsehood if left to itself. Second, science should be left to the
scientists with minimal interference. He takes a position between Aquestion authority and
Aonly scientists should be permitted to speak on science, but leans toward the latter.

At the Fringes of Science is a
well-written discussion of how science is done, as seen by a scientist. It takes care to
point out the fuzzy boundaries of science, and how today's maverick idea may be tomorrow's
paradigm. Especially interesting is the short but excellent discussion of Awhat makes an
expert. Friedlander has covered most of the bases.

Nevertheless, he is perhaps too sanguine
about the ability of peer review and the judgment of posterity to keep fraud, rare as it
may be, from influencing the future course of science. I grant that if one takes the long
view one will find that results which cannot be reproduced will be abandoned; but
meanwhile how many hours of valuable time are wasted chasing chimeras? Only one method for
the detection of deliberate scientific fraud is presented, send skeptical, professional
magicians into the suspected laboratories! and much is left up to self-policing.

I found the book a mine of information. At
least two examples of revolutionary science or pseudoscience are presented per chapter,
and yet Friedlander manages to carry it off without the book seeming cluttered. He
accomplishes this through judicious selection of facts, coupled with careful referral of
the reader to bibliographical notes and a list of recommended further reading.

I recommend this book for those who deal
with the public, particularly thosewho teach survey and introductory science
courses. It is also designed to be useful to science journalists and to the general
public. As a novice in the area of weird science, I found it full of good examples and
excellent references.

Father Edwards is very well qualified both
by previous publications and by his mastery of relevant literature to produce this book.
For the present reviewer, Edwards' main contribution is his effective reinforcement of the
holistic-relational argument for Christian ecology. In Part 1 of the book, Edwards
demonstrates the implications of God's creative work C through God the Son seen as
Wisdom/Sophia. In Edwards' own words, he offers Aa trinitarian theology which springs from
a Wisdom Christology and leads to human ecological praxis (p. 15).

The argument opens with a thorough review
of Wisdom/Sophia materials in the Judeo-Christian tradition (Chapter One) including a
heavy emphasis on Wisdom's relationally-oriented creative work. Edwards quotes Kathleen
O'Conner in arguing for the relational character of Athe Wisdom Woman (p. 20). This
quality of the Creator and creation then becomes the major ideological foundation for a
relational, ecological theology. The argument is advanced by the identification of
Wisdom/Sophia (with all the feminist overtones usually found in contemporary scholarship)
with Jesus of Nazareth (Chapter Two). The reader need not accept all the feminist detail
to appreciate the positive contribution of AWisdom Christology to the evangelical
ecological debate. Chapter three can be roughly summarized by two quotations. First,
Wisdom Christology can show the interrelation between the expanding, inter-connected and
self-organizing universe and all its creatures, and the saving work of Jesus Christ. A
second quote exposes what the cross tells us about the love that moves the universe, and
what the resurrection means for the creatures of the universe (p. 69). The relating of
these themes to God's love for all creatures in the saving work of Christ may be the most
significant emphasis of this work for evangelicals.

In contrast to the relative clarity and
unity of Part 1, Part 2 is less focused. The concern remains ecological but the goal seems
to be to grasp at any theological straw which can be construed as support for ecological
responsibility without any sense as to whether or not these many theologies form a
cohesive, structured statement. The disunited, fragmented character of this bundling of
theologies diminishes the moral authority needed to demand ecological responsibility.
However, Part 2 still demonstrates very well the breadth of the writer's scholarship.

Most informed evangelicals will appreciate
Edwards' argument that ecological responsibility honors the fruits of God's loving
fecundity as seen in traditional Roman Catholic thought (Chapter 4). Chapter five states
six ecological theses which the reviewer saw as relating holistic and relational ecology
to the holism and inter-relationality of the Trinity, another approach which any
evangelical should appreciate.

As Chapter Six opens, the unity of
argument based upon a relational perspective is maintained as expressed in the following
words: Athe theology of the trinitarian God revealed in Jesus leads to a view of human
beings which is inter-subjective, and interrelated with the Earth, the universe and all
its creatures (p. 133). But, then unity is lost in an eclectic, opportunistic methodology
which takes a little bit from every current theology. Concepts such as Moltmann's
'livingness of life' (p 136), Rahner's bodilessness (p. 137), ourstardust origins on the
material side with an unnecessarily detailed exposition of Big Bang cosmology (pp.
139-142), Sally McFague's anti-evolutionary, Liberation perspectives (p. 144), and Gustavo
GutiÈrrez' Liberation Theology (p. 148) all combine to produce a treatment which lacks
the clarity, unity, and authority of Part 1.

Edwards doses his book with a number of
general proposals for ecological praxis (Chapter 7). These are generally instructive but
some details seemed to the reviewer to go beyond the demands established by the positive
arguments presented in the book. For example, the theological framework of the book does
not demand that we enter into a family relationship with the animals (p. 166) or a
Schweitzer-likereverence for life (p. 157). Further, while some of us might agree that the
poor always merit special attention and grace, we also might suspect that Edwards' usage
of this concept moves too close to the violent Marxist excesses of GutiÈrrez' Liberation
Theology.

Overall this is a scholarly, effective
treatment of the issue, one from which any reader can learn and by which any reader can be
challenged.

Philip Kitcher received his Ph.D. from
Princeton in the department where Thomas Kuhn and Carl G. Hempel both taught. As Professor
of Philosophy at the University of California, San Diego, he has written three highly
acclaimed books: Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (1982); The
Nature of Mathematical Knowledge (1983); and Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and
the Quest for Human Nature (1985), where he demonstrates a good command of knowledge
in biology, mathematics, and philosophy.

This book's aims are to probe the notions
of progress and rationality, to correct the excess of Kuhn (1962) and Feyerabend (1970),
to incorporate their insights, and to re-establish science as a body of objective
knowledge achieved through a communal exercise. Kitcher's effort to rehabilitate the Legend
is similar to the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth in Christian theology. Kitcher's synthesis
is reasonable and should appeal to a practicing scientist.

Chapter 2, Darwin's Achievement, provides
an example for the later discussion of goals, methods, progress, rationality, individual
scientific behavior, and the social structure of science.

Chapter 3, The Microstructure of
Scientific Change,treats the growth of science as a naturalistic process in a
social context. From the thoughts and actions of individuals, scientific change results in
complex ways. Kitcher argues against theory-laden perception and affirms intersubjective
agreement of perceptually induced belief. He defines the consensus practice of a community
as consisting of a language, an assessment of significant questions, a set of accepted
statements, a set of explanatory schemata, a set of paradigms of authority, a set of
experiments and instruments, and a set of methodological exemplars and principles.

In Chapter 4, Varieties of Progress are
defined as conceptual, explanatory, and instrumental. Kuhn's problematic cases
(Priestley's phlogiston theory vs Lavoisier's oxygen) of conceptual incommmensurability
are re-analyzed through a correspondence of key reference terms, thus negating the
existence of communication gaps. Explanatory progress is illustrated by Dalton's atomic
theory which introduced schemata, lately refined, generalized, and extended. Instrumental
progress is exemplified by Galileo's telescope. These progresses eliminate falsehood in
favor of truth, the mundane for the genuinely significant questions, and use improved
language to reformulate prior truths.

Chapter 5, Realism and Scientific
Progress, defends the coherence of the realist conception of truth and the author's
account of true knowledge. He espouses a correspondence theory of truth which is verified
through common sense in our daily experience. A non-realist position will impoverish life;
besides, the past history of science shows the unusual stability of scientific knowledge
in many fields despite occasional errors. The scientific process depends mainly upon the
objective, Areal nature instead of human social forces.

In Chapter 6, Kitcher agrees with Kuhn's
insight in Dissolving Rationality for individual scientist; however, he endeavors to
salvage the rationality for the scientific enterprise through a compromised model.
Rationality is not the logical connection among beliefs as logical positivists claimed,
but rather a mental attitude, a psychologically connected state of mind which can promote
cognitive goals. Rationality is achieved through debates within the scientific community
and emergence of a new well-argued consensus practice.

In the final chapter,The Organization of
Cognitive Labor, Kitcher discusses how the variety of individual strategies can combine to
advance community, epistemic goals. Many social phenomena, like authority, cooperation,
calibration, prestige, entrepreneurs, credit distribution, response to innovation, theory
choice, and cognitive variation, are analyzed through simplified mathematical models.
Kitcher concludes that there are advantages in cognitive diversity for a scientific
community, just as the democratic process is beneficial for a political system.

This book presents an optimistic view
about the progress of science. Christians have a basis for this optimism since God is the
Creator and the Sustainer of this universe, and humans are endowed with the image of God.
Newton understood nature as another book given by God. Everything is in God's control and
science will progress as it reveals God's glory. This book describes the characteristics
of science which are compatible to the thinking of a bench scientist. We sometimes are
captivated by the recent trend of scientific relativism; this book provides a well-argued
synthesis which demonstrates that a common-sense, realist approach is still commendable. I
highly recommend this book to the readers of PSCF.

This was a difficult book to read and even
more difficult to understand. I attribute this to two factors, the author's style and the
complexity of the subject. On the first, note the following sentence (p. 172): AWhile
`form' gave evidence to the relationship of a particular entity to a divine archetype and
hence its `resemblance' to other material forms, the different `virtues' of similar forms
establish the particular place of individual entities within the analogically organized
hierarchy of created things and hence each one's difference within this divine text.
Imagine 300 pages of this kind of writing covering history and philosophy of science and
its interaction with religion!

Despite the tough going and slogging
through Latin and French quotes, I was inexplicably drawn into the topic. Being a plant
taxonomist, I deal with the concept of typology, albeit usually unwittingly. I learned
much about the origin of typology from this book as well as the philosophy behind the
concept of Natural History.

Before the Enlightenment Period, science
tried to understand nature by trying to know the language of God, that is, the language
spoken and understood by Adam in the Garden of Eden. Postlapsarian (a favorite term of
Bono's) man was cut off from this God-given source of knowledge best exemplified by
Genesis 2:19 where God "brought all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the
air." "He [God] brought them to man to see what he would name them; and whatever
the man called each living creature, that was its name." In other words, it was the
language of Adam that was important rather than the animals themselves because the name
incorporated the essence of the object. In present western civilization, we are far
removed from this concept. Not so with our scientific forefathers of the Middle Ages. A
great effort was placed on trying to determine the mystery of the language through
cabalistic approaches and mysticism.

The Protestant Reformation and especially
the Puritan impact in England changed all that. Although Bono does not state it as such,
it was the acceptance of the Bible as a divine revelation, completely outside human ken,
that drew attention towards understanding the creation. Francis Bacon exemplified this
approach and stimulated interest in what we now call scientific research. This change to
an inductive study was more revolutionary than I realized before I read this book.

Despite the writing style and the
scholarship included in the volume, I have been rewarded by the effort put into reading
this book. It has helped me to understand how we arrived where we are in the scientific
community and gives valuable insight into the current questioning in science regarding
objectivity. The book also helped me understand the origin of the Doctrine of Signatures,
so important in ethnobotany. Bono gives insight into some sources of mysticism carried
into present day practices of homeopathic medicine and other alternative medicines.

It was disappointing to find numerous
typographical errors as well as references cited in the text not included in the
references cited section.

Sims is professor of Religion and History
at Lee College, Cleveland, TN. I am not aware of any other books he has written. This book
is a summary of the life and teachings of three twentieth-century apologists: C. S. Lewis,
E. J. Carnell, and Reinhold Niebuhr. These three are presented as examples of theologians
who attempted to defend the Christian faith intellectually. We live in a world where
skepticism abounds, and it is imperative that Christian truth not be presented as simply a
blind leap of faith, but as a religion which can be defended intellectually.

The three men reviewed by Sims are quite
different in their apologetic approach. Lewis was an academic atheist who was converted to
Christianity, and who became an able defender of the gospel. His influence has been
profound. Many skeptical intellectuals have found Christ appealing after reading C. S.
Lewis. Many ministers (myself included) have recommended Lewis to those who struggle with
the truth claims of Christianity.

Sims reminds us of how impatient Lewis was
with biblical scholars who were so quick to dismiss certain biblical materials as
mythical. Lewis was a professor of literature and was very familiar with the nature of
mythological writings, and affirmed that the New Testament does not fit into the typical
mythical style of writing.

Carnell is one of the founders of
neo-evangelicalism. He reacted against the rigidity of fundamentalism and sought to bring
orthodox Christianity into the mainstream of academia. As the first president of Fuller
Theological Seminary, he worked to bring academic respectability to Christianity while
refusing to compromise on basic biblical truth claims. Camell believed that the Christian
worldview is intellectually satisfying, giving solid answers to the basic questions of
epistemology and metaphysics, sensibly outlining the nature and destiny of man, and
making possible a relationship with the living God. No other worldview can accomplish
these results.

Reinhold Niebuhr differs from the other
two in that he must be placed in the liberal theological camp. He was more of a social
action apologist than a doctrinal apologist. While Lewis and Camell accepted the orthodox
Christian position regarding the inspiration and authority of Scripture, Niebuhr rejected
the historicity of many biblical stories. He was enamored with some aspects of
Marxism/socialism and advocated a Christianity which was active in the political realm,
working for justice and human rights. While not as strong on the truth claims of
Christianity as Carnell and Lewis, Niebuhr did argue that the Christian interpretation of
life and history is truer to the facts of human experience than any other interpretation.

Sims gives a summary of each man's
personal life followed by a review of their basic ideas as reflected in their writings.
For persons who are unfamiliar with these three theologians, Sims book gives an adequate
introduction. It would hopefully then lead into a first hand reading of these three
apologists. As is probably true with any book about the beliefs of others, the summary is
not nearly as interesting as the source material. This is especially true of C. S. Lewis
who must be read first hand to be appreciated. The bibliography at the end of each section
directs the reader to the source materials.

The book serves to remind us that the
gospel has always had able apologists. Those who dismiss Christianity as intellectually
indefensible only reveal their ignorance. While one may not agree entirely with these
three defenders of the faith, their intellectual ability is undeniable. Those who question
the Christian truth claims should not be cast aside by the church. They should be led into
the writings of the great Christian apologists who may be able to answer their doubts.

Richard Webster is a British scholar who
also wrote A Brief History of Blasphemy. He is the author of many articles for The
Critical Review, The Observer, and The Times Literary Supplement. While
his degree is in literature, he has obviously done considerable homework in the field of
psychoanalysis. His criticisms of Freud are well documented and profound.

The book contains three main sections. The
first addresses the background and development of psychoanalysis, which Webster calls a
pseudoscience. The second part would be of interest to Christians. It is titled, AThe
Church and the Psychoanalytic Gospel. The third main section is a summary and conclusions,
with a look towards the future.

Freud continues to be honored, if not
revered, in some circles. However, few of those who work in the mental health field use
his methods. When I worked for a mental health center some 15 years ago, the techniques of
psychoanalysis were regarded as much too lengthy and complex, and of doubtful value.
However, there are psychiatrists in practice who use some Freudian methodologies.

This rather long but very interesting book
by Webster argues persuasively that Freud was wrong. Freud is pictured as an egotistical
man who deliberately set out to make a name for himself, a man driven to achieve fame and
recognition. While he succeeded in his goal, he did so by creating a theory of human
behavior based on very faulty research. He often misdiagnosed organic problems in his zeal
to explain things through mental categories. In several lengthy studies of Freud's own
case notes, the author shows how certain patients undoubtedly had organic problems (brain
lesions, epilepsy, etc.) but were treated as though their symptoms were mental. His own
daughter, Anna, is a prime example. Freud believed she was suffering from hysteria, a
disease which does not even exist according to Webster.

The author shows that one of Freud's
problems was his tendency to follow other charismatic physicians of his day (Charcot, for
example) whose theories later proved to be false. Webster presents much evidence
suggesting that many of Freud's patients fit themselves into his system, accepting his
explanations of their problem. One suspects that the power of suggestion and Freud's
growing reputation caused many to accept his analysis. Most of Freud's psychoanalytic
theories have little relationship to science.

One of Freud's more interesting errors was
his discovery of the benefits of cocaine. Freud was able to wean one of his friends,
Fleischl-Marxow, from morphine addiction by substituting cocaine for morphine, but then
his friend died from cocaine addiction. As Freud describes this case, he shifts the blame
from himself to his unfortunate friend, seeking to cover up his own role in his friend's
death.

In Freud's lengthy analysis of Anna, he
delved deeply into her secret fantasies. He reconstructed her daydreams (which she did not
even remember having!) and got her to believe his reconstructions, reminiscent of today's
recovered memory therapy. Webster claims that Anna was never cured by her father because
she did not have the illness he claimed she did.

In the second section of the book, the
author points out how psychoanalysis was more of a religious cult than a scientific fact.
Freud saw himself in Messianic terms, and others promoted this image. Carl Jung recalls
how Freud tried to persuade him never to abandon the theory of infant sexuality, much in
the manner of a father asking his son to always remain faithful to the church.
Psychoanalytic teachings were dogmas not to be questioned. It is somewhat amusing to
realize that many of Freud's followers imitated him by taking up cigar smoking, growing
beards, and in some cases trying to imitate his speech and mannerisms.

Christians reading this book (or Freud's
own writings) will note Freud's dislike for Christianity and his Jewish heritage. In some
ways Freud attempted to replace biblical understandings of human behavior with his own
theories. Those who believe that the Scriptures reflect the mind of God are not surprised
to learn how widely Freud misunderstood human behavior. Those who turn away from divine
truth to create their own version of reality usually end up where Freud did in
mythology, pseudoscience, and just plain nonsense. Sadly, some Christian theologians have
embraced psychoanalysis and tried to make it compatible with Christian doctrine. Webster
gives several examples of this phenomena. While Webster is not a friend of orthodox
Christianity, his book should caution Christians against embracing theories promoted by
those who set themselves up as new Messiahs. This book is must reading for those who
continue to be enamored with Sigmund Freud.

As the authors indicate, AIt is always
easier to prevent problems in the first place than to cure them after they develop. This
book offers biblically sound, parenting guidance, especially for the first six years. It
provides a comprehensive look at many aspects of child development.

This book describes development from a
prenatal stage through adolescence. The challenges of demanding respect when children are
young, rewarding good and productive behavior, avoiding confrontation in front of the
child's friends, using more reasoning and adult-to-adult style communication are
explained. This book not only encourages parents to understand their children better but
also provides them with general guidelines about seeking professional help when their
children are having great difficulty. The authors share personal experiences as parents
and offer unique insight as professionals.

Throughout the book, the importance of a
father figure is repeated in different chapters; so is the parents' responsibility. The
authors say, The father and mother's first responsibility from God is the family. All else
comes in a distant second. Our children are our first calling from God, no matter what
occupation God may call us into. The family has to be our first and utmost calling from
God.

The repetition concerning the importance
of a fatherly figure may not be necessary, because some readers may be offended by the
strong and repeated emphasis on a fatherly figure but not on a motherly figure. Also, the
statement, "Children learn academic subjects faster and better if they do not begin
school until eight years of age," is debatable; at least it is contrary to the
experience of my family members. Love and stability at home are vital for children.
However, it may not be quite right to compare the situation of a domineering mother and a
weak father to the fatherless home. A weak father can still be a loving father who can
comfort and support his children financially, emotionally, and spiritually.

As we face a society gripped by conflict
and despair, this book provides a clear path for our confusing age. It urges parents to
teach children the values of good character, desirable behavior, and hard work. It will be
helpful for parents to read this book while children are young because much of the adult
personality is formed during childhood.

Reviewed by Meei-ming L. Chen, National
Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20892.

Dossey is a medical doctor internist who
noted in his practice that prayer for healing of disease worked. He decided to look into
the experimental evidence for or against the effectiveness of prayer in this area, and
this book is the result of that research. Dossey is not a neophyte in this area, having
written four previous books on Aconsciousness in health. Furthermore, the book jacket says
he is co-chairman of the Panel on Mind/Body Interventions, Office of Alternative Medicine,
National Institutes of Health. Raised a fundamentalist Protestant in rural Texas, he
became an agnostic in college and later developed an interest in spiritual things,
manifested by his involvement with Eastern and Western mysticism. He believes in an
unnameable absolute, not necessarily God.

From this background, he has attempted to
evaluate in a non-judgmental way the evidences for healing, giving all the reports and
studies equal consideration, regardless of their source. He judges them on the basis of
their scientific merit and finds substantial statistical evidence for healing through
prayer. The healing comes whether the prayer is local or distant, or focused or unfocused.
The healing can be immediate or delayed or even before the disease occurs. He finds there
is no formula for prayer, and it doesn't seem to matter who offers it, what they pray for,
or to whom they pray. He concludes that the success of prayer may simply be aligning
ourselves with unconscious divinity, from which healing comes, whether specifically
requested or not.

Dossey deals in detail with the evidence,
listing 131 trials of which 77 showed, based on statistical analysis, that prayer was
effective. Most of the experiments dealt with living organisms other than humans, such as
bacteria and mice, but 37 dealt with humans. He spends several pages discussing the
article by cardiologist Randolph Byrd published in the Southern Medical Journal in
1988. It showed that patients in a coronary care unit who were prayed for in a
double-blind experiment did statistically better than those not prayed for. Although
Dossey congratulates Byrd on his courage in doing the experiment, he raises several
questions, both ethical and procedural, about his study.

He describes three eras in medicine: the
mechanical era where we have been for a while, in which every effect has a distinguishable
cause; the mind-body era, where we are gradually understanding that one's mind has a major
effect on one's well-being; and the transpersonal era to come, in which the body is
affected by nonlocal events such as prayer, not measurable by any energy fields. Dossey
optimistically predicts that we are moving towards the third era in which the rift between
science and religion will be thus healed as each recognizes a soul-like quality of
consciousness.

This book is well researched, thorough,
and well written. Believers will be interested to know that there is statistical evidence
that prayer works, even though the experimental setting may not correspond to our idea of
prayer. However, we would be more comfortable reading a classic on Christian healing such
as Healing and Christianity by Morton Kelsey.

Several years ago we were fascinated by
reports that Jesus' boat had been discovered. The truth, as is so often the case, is
somewhat less sensational, but electrifying enough in its own right. We are treated here
with a popularized version of the preliminary report (`Atiqot v. 19). Wachsmann is
a nautical archaeologist and expert on seacraft of the Ancient Near East (Inspector of
Underwater Antiquities in Israel from 1976 to 1989, Assistant Professor of Biblical
Archaeology in the Nautical Archaeology Program at Texas A&M, excavator of several
wrecks, author of three books on ancient seafaring and numerous journal articles), and a
master storyteller. Fast-paced chapters narrating the discovery, excavation, and troubles
of the expedition more or less alternate with background chapters. For instance, Chapter
6, an adventure tale of the background, conduct, and results of the great First Revolt
naval Battle of Migdal, sets the stage for the chapter evaluating the possibility that the
boat had been a part of this battle. Comprehension is greatly enhanced by a large number
of fairly clear photographs, maps, diagrams illustrating the shipwright terms and
construction that he describes, a photograph of a detailed model of the boat as
preliminarily reconstructed, and a glossary with two diagrams clearly showing the nautical
terms.

The excavator's de facto motto, Never a
dull moment (p. 295), appears to be the one stable condition of the entire campaign.
Premature announcement of the find, rumors that it was full of gold, and a serious
shortage of funds got things off to a tension-filled start. More crises and problems
followed in rapid succession: demand of a neighboring kibbutz for possession of the boat,
including a brief armed interference, endangered the boat's very existence. Tight
deadlines, weather threatening the boat early in the excavation, storm waves nearly
eroding away the preservation tank and its hut after excavation, and bacteria fermenting
the water and eating the boat in the preservation tank are a few of the events providing
excitement after work started. Experts in many fields, diplomats, and lay people from all
walks provided ingenuity, all out effort, technical skills, donation of materials, and
dirty, cold, back-breaking work in the mud.

Wachsmarm writes a detective story
interweaving evidence from the remains of the boat, a mosaic picture, incidental
information from the Gospel accounts, the writings of Josephus, knowledge of shipbuilding
and seafaring elsewhere in the Mediterranean world at that time, and other sources. He
discusses the dating problems and possibilities in detail, concluding that the boat was in
use for a couple decades somewhere between 100 B.C. and 67 A.D. It is statistically
improbable that Jesus or the disciples were ever in the boat, but it is the type of boat
that they did use and they could have been in it. Also, it is not too likely that the boat
was in the great naval battle. Nevertheless, preliminary results do include a tentative
solution to the problem of rafts that Vespasian built for the naval Battle of Migdal; they
were probably catamarans, constructed by building platforms across pairs of commandeered
fishing boats like the Galilee boat being excavated.

Prior to the excavation of the Galilee
boat, we knew nothing about how watercraft had been built on the Sea of Galilee in
antiquity (p. 15), but the amount of information that will be gained from this discovery
is amazing. Its final resting place was the salvage yard of a shipbuilding area; the few
still useful parts were removed for reuse before it was abandoned and forgotten nearly
2,000 years ago. Because it was found in a remarkable state of preservation due to its
rapid and nearly complete burial, the cleaning and preservation processes are revealing
tool marks which will illuminate the shipbuilding tools and techniques used. The wide
variety of materials used in building and repairing the boat indicates the difficulties
faced by a master shipwright working in a poor area with a scarcity of nimble material.
The results of studying this boat will provide very important data for interpreting the
life and culture of the times and geographic locale of Jesus. We will have to wait for
most of it, however, because the long, complicated preservation process will not be
complete until 1996 or 1997.

In sum, this is an exciting adventure
tale, complete with an improbable string of near disasters averted by teamwork,
selflessness, and ingenious improvisations just in the nick of time. It also contains a
remarkable amount of information on the milieu of the boat, shipbuilding of the period,
and nautical archaeology. Highly recommended.

Those who have followed the Southern
Baptists' acrimonious debate over Scripture in recent years will recognize the urgency
with which this book was written. Dockery, Vice President for Academic Administration and
Dean of the School of Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has produced
an exposition and defense of the inerrantists' position. He rejects the extremes of
liberal and fundamentalist interpretations and Aseeks to offer an evangelical
understanding of the inspiration, interpretation, and authority of Scripture (p. 2).
Dockery laments that twentieth-century developments in Southern Baptist teaching have left
their people unable to understand the infallible vs. inerrant debate, and he is apparently
writing to help correct this deficiency. He does a remarkable job of clear, lively writing
and avoids most of the opaqueness so frequently found in theological discussions.

Christian Scripture uses a quite
detailed and cautious definition of inerrancy which gives a very high view of the full
inspiration of Scripture, its truthfulness, reliability, and authority, while avoiding the
excesses many attribute to the doctrine. He insists on full recognition of human
authorship as well as the divine authorship: the human authors wrote in their own words
and understanding, but God superintended the authors' human creativity so that Scripture
says what he intended and there is no error in what it affirms. Dockery recognizes that
different genres, such as poetry, laws, and proverbs, have different effects on the
hermeneutical task. This definition seems to allow one to avoid being boxed in by
excessive literalism, yet he does not spell out what it means in actual exegesis. We are
not given even a hint of how much latitude he would allow in, for instance, the
interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Must it be history and science, albeit a simplified
history and science expressed in ancient words but without varying from modern scientific
description, or can we recognize it as a more symbolic work inerrantly and infallibly
expressing the theological truths that God wants us to know? Given the rancor and
intransigence of the debate, perhaps this vagueness is wise in a book that hopes to reach
both sides.

While his comprehensive and basic sketch
of the doctrine of Scripture is placed within a historical framework from earliest
Christian times through the modern worldwide crisis on biblical authority, it is focused
on the Southern Baptist experience. In fact, Dockery may have spread himself too thin by
trying to cover too much material in such a short span of pages. After a survey of the
present crisis and attitudes in the universal church, he goes into a discussion of the
writing, inspiration, transmission, and authority of Scripture, followed by an extensive
sketch of the history of interpretative approaches from that of Jesus through modern
times. This is supposedly the basis for his final presentation of the proper use and
interpretation of Scripture in the church today. An appendix summarizes the use and
interpretation of Scripture in the history of the Southern Baptist Convention.

The problem is whether this book presents
enough detail to do the job. There is some very good material in it on revelation,
inspiration, authority, Jesus' method of interpretation, inerrant vs. infallible, etc.
However, this reviewer kept finding himself wishing that there was a bit more information,
a bit more tying things together, and pointing toward additional sources.The
historical section on interpretation is a case in point. It was included to form a basis
for the final section on the proper use and interpretation of Scripture, yet there is a
hiatus between them; it's like there is a 52-page insertion of extraneous material. No
doubt the connection is quite clear in Dockery's mind, but we are left to guess at his
views.

In spite of the criticisms, this is a good
book for the purpose for which it was written. There is much food for thought and the
extensive footnotes and bibliography provide a pathway for further study for those who are
interested.